[jdonn]

han, on Apr 11 2008, 11:35 AM, said:

I don't think these two comments contradict eachother Josh. South is not "supposed" to bid 4H with 4 but might do so with 4 good ones. Here the clubs are much better than the hearts and it seems criminal to bypass them.

I agree it's not inherently contradictory, I simply think it's contradictory anyway (I wonder if that makes any sense at all). I mean if south has to bid 4♥ to find a 4-4 fit, then how can he bid anything else when he has four hearts? What if north raises the minor suit, isn't it just too easy to miss a heart fit?

Helene, not sure why you think north would usually have four hearts to cuebid. He could, but doesn't it just show any strong hand?

[FrancesHinden]

jdonn, on Apr 11 2008, 05:10 PM, said:

My main thought reading the responses is a lot of people say

"south can't bid 4♥ on this hand!"
"north can't pass, south will only have four hearts!"

How are these consistent comments? Is south supposed to bid 4♥ to show four hearts or isn't he?

As I explained, I don't think South is supposed to bid 4H just to show 4 of them, I think he is supposed to bid his lowest playable suit. So 4H is wrong on the hand he has when he has a club suit as well.

Having said that, he might have doubled on a 3433 with more high cards, in which case 4H would be the correct call. In which case North cannot pass.

The main point is that South cannot have 6 hearts and is hugely unlikely to have five hearts, or he would have bid hearts earlier. So North cannot pass.

But there's no reason for South to bid 4H on a hand where he has a longer minor.

[jdonn]

Ok I don't think that makes any sense at all on game level but at least I understand what you're saying. Wouldn't that then make the auction impossible from north's perspective? The opponents have guaranteed 8 spades, south should be 2433?

[kenrexford]

jdonn, on Apr 11 2008, 01:02 PM, said:

Ok I don't think that makes any sense at all on game level but at least I understand what you're saying. Wouldn't that then make the auction impossible from north's perspective? The opponents have guaranteed 8 spades, south should be 2433?

This entire line of thinking, by the way, is why I personally think that 4♥, in theory, should be a club slam move (4♠ being a diamond slam move). The auction cannot possibly go X...3♠...4♥....P If it cannot happen, then 4♥ as natural would make no sense.

When 4♥ as natural makes no sense, and when 4♠ as natural CLEARLY makes no sense, and when both minors are in contention, and when some call (3♠) has been made to show extreme values, and when either major call (4♥/4♠) commits to the five-level anyway, then for me that call is a flag (4♥ for clubs, 4♠ for diamonds). When the flag is above four of the focus suit (check), then the flag is RKCB for the agreed suit, on route to five of the agreed suit, as the person making the flag could always have just bid five of the agreed suit himself. This is especially true when four of either suit was an option (it was) and would have been forcing (surely it was).

Any time that hearts might provide the ultimate end contract (plausible here), it seems that Advancer must bid a minor (4♣/4♦) and doubler then bid hearts (4♥). In that situation, 4♠ is available as RKCB for the focus minor (the one just bid), and 4♦ over 4♣ is avauilable to refocus/suggest the other minor.

Admittedly, this seems to not be CW, nor would I actually expect partner to field this in practice, unless after discussion, which is sometimes what these forums are all about.

[helene_t]

jdonn, on Apr 11 2008, 06:06 PM, said:

Helene, not sure why you think north would usually have four hearts to cuebid. He could, but doesn't it just show any strong hand?

Without four hearts he might have overcalled 1NT or 2m. But ok, something like xx-Axx-AKxx-AQxx would also be a typical hand.

Btw, Frances' treatment looks good, it's just not what I would assume undiscussed. I might be wrong.

[cherdano]

jdonn, on Apr 11 2008, 12:02 PM, said:

Ok I don't think that makes any sense at all on game level but at least I understand what you're saying. Wouldn't that then make the auction impossible from north's perspective? The opponents have guaranteed 8 spades, south should be 2433?

Yes. However, nobody would make a responsive double with 5 hearts, while it is very well conceivable that South skipped a 4-card minor in order to bid 4♥.

[kenrexford]

cherdano, on Apr 11 2008, 02:08 PM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 11 2008, 12:02 PM, said:

Ok I don't think that makes any sense at all on game level but at least I understand what you're saying. Wouldn't that then make the auction impossible from north's perspective? The opponents have guaranteed 8 spades, south should be 2433?

Yes. However, nobody would make a responsive double with 5 hearts, while it is very well conceivable that South skipped a 4-card minor in order to bid 4♥.

It is conceivable that anything could happen, as it usually does at some table.

However, is there any conceivable reason why Advancer would skip a four-card minor correctly?

[jdonn]

I guess I don't know why one misbid is more conceivable than another. In fact the one that you say isn't conceivable was recommended by Mike Lawrence, I believe, in his book on overcalls. Trying to remember, but I believe he discussed the possibility of playing double then 3♥ as simply a weaker way to get to 3♥ (which would fit in well if 2NT was two places to play) in which case 5 or even 6 would be possible. Can anyone who has a copy handy back me up on that?

[655321]

jdonn, on Apr 11 2008, 05:40 PM, said:

I guess I don't know why one misbid is more conceivable than another. In fact the one that you say isn't conceivable was recommended by Mike Lawrence, I believe, in his book on overcalls. Trying to remember, but I believe he discussed the possibility of playing double then 3♥ as simply a weaker way to get to 3♥ (which would fit in well if 2NT was two places to play) in which case 5 or even 6 would be possible. Can anyone who has a copy handy back me up on that?

"You can in fact make a very fine distinction here if you wish to take the trouble. You can play that
1♠ - Dbl - 2♠ - 3♥ shows a decent hand, and
1♠ - Dbl - 2♠ - Dbl
Pass-3♣-Pass-3♥ shows a weak competitive hand.
This is quite reasonable and only lack of frequency dictates not bothering with it."

[mikeh]

I think the responsive double was (close to) insane. He has short spades, the opps have not preempted, and he has a weak hand. The odds are high that partner has an offshape, extra strength takeout double... maybe not the hand he held, but a prime 18 - 19 is a real possibility.. a hand planning to double and bid notrump.

I think we can afford to pass.

But, maybe we can't...and maybe we don't have 2N available as some form of lebensohl... I thought most expert pairs used 2N as artificial here...

Both double and 3♠ were routine... Frances' explanation of the cuebid, when the original plan was surely double then notrump, makes nothing but sense.

4♥ is wrong... wrong because North has, by his cuebid, shown (most of) his extra strength... and the lack of 3♠ by either opp confirms that North may well hold a huge notrump hand... so it is no longer safe to infer a heart fit.

Thus, even without the specific partnership agreements described by Frances, S has to bid 4♣. This is forcing, and if opener bids 4♦, we can show our hearts. if he doesn't, and does't bid 4♥ himself, well, maybe we miss our 4-4 heart fit... but as advancer, that's just the cost of doing business.

As for the pass of 4♥, I think that it is an error.. but an error induced by realizing that South has misbid. When a player creates an auction in which at least two of his calls are inconsistent, such that he has obviously erred, it is wrong to blame partner for not guessing which bid was the error... does he have long hearts, and thus no double, or does he have short hearts, and thus no 4♥ bid?

[cherdano]

jdonn, on Apr 11 2008, 04:40 PM, said:

I guess I don't know why one misbid is more conceivable than another. In fact the one that you say isn't conceivable was recommended by Mike Lawrence, I believe, in his book on overcalls. Trying to remember, but I believe he discussed the possibility of playing double then 3♥ as simply a weaker way to get to 3♥ (which would fit in well if 2NT was two places to play) in which case 5 or even 6 would be possible. Can anyone who has a copy handy back me up on that?

Come on, it doesn't matter what Lawrence wrote on some page of some book. Nobody plays responsive doubles like that. OTOH, it is very well conceivable that advancer thought 4m is non-forcing or that it denies 4 hearts, and so just bid the cheapest game he saw in front of his nose.

This post has been edited by cherdano: 2008-April-11, 17:49

[Echognome]

cherdano, on Apr 11 2008, 03:42 PM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 11 2008, 04:40 PM, said:

I guess I don't know why one misbid is more conceivable than another. In fact the one that you say isn't conceivable was recommended by Mike Lawrence, I believe, in his book on overcalls. Trying to remember, but I believe he discussed the possibility of playing double then 3♥ as simply a weaker way to get to 3♥ (which would fit in well if 2NT was two places to play) in which case 5 or even 6 would be possible. Can anyone who has a copy handy back me up on that?

Come on, it doesn't matter what Lawrence wrote on some page of some book. Nobody plays responsive doubles like that. OTOH, it is very well conceivable that advancer thought 4m is non-forcing and so just bid the cheapest game he saw in front of his nose.

How double then cuebid can not be considered GF by anyone that is "expert" I cannot know.

[jdonn]

cherdano, on Apr 11 2008, 06:42 PM, said:

Come on, it doesn't matter what Lawrence wrote on some page of some book. Nobody plays responsive doubles like that.

That goes down as one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read.

Quote

OTOH, it is very well conceivable that advancer thought 4m is non-forcing or that it denies 4 hearts, and so just bid the cheapest game he saw in front of his nose.

Really? After the double then double then CUEBID? If you ask me that's a lot less than very well conceivable.

I think MikeH nailed this, and yes I'm the idiot north. North knows that south misbid, but how does he know in what way? You can insist all you want one way is impossible and the other is very possible, but I simply don't agree. The other way is impossible because I showed you the hand. At least I have a reputable author stating it's possible in a well known book, what do you have but your continued insistance?

Anyone who knows me well knows that I'm all for taking the blame when I think I screwed up (although ok I'm sure I don't think I screwed up nearly as often as I actually do. Stupid human nature.) In fact I posted this problem sort of hoping I could be convinced this was all my fault. But I just don't see it here. South made a huge overbid, then a huge misbid, and all I did wrong was guess in what way he had misbid, in a situation when I was in huge trouble if I guessed wrong in either direction, and when if I guessed the other way I would still have had no great bid to make. Sorry?

[cherdano]

jdonn, on Apr 11 2008, 06:02 PM, said:

cherdano, on Apr 11 2008, 06:42 PM, said:

Come on, it doesn't matter what Lawrence wrote on some page of some book. Nobody plays responsive doubles like that.

That goes down as one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read.

Let me preserve it for eternity, I didn't expect it to be that easy to achieve this status...

[cherdano]

As an aside comment, I wonder about the playability of the treatment suggested by Lawrence. Isn't doubler allowed to pass the responsive double with a strong balanced hand?

[jdonn]

cherdano, on Apr 11 2008, 07:23 PM, said:

As an aside comment, I wonder about the playability of the treatment suggested by Lawrence. Isn't doubler allowed to pass the responsive double with a strong balanced hand?

Maybe it would be a good agreement for this south. After all, he clearly seems to have been unconcerned with that possibility

[FrancesHinden]

jdonn, on Apr 11 2008, 07:02 PM, said:

Ok I don't think that makes any sense at all on game level but at least I understand what you're saying. Wouldn't that then make the auction impossible from north's perspective? The opponents have guaranteed 8 spades, south should be 2433?

Yes. As mikeh put it, and you agreed, North knows south has (almost certainly) misbid, he jsut doesn't know how...

As for the Lawrence treatment you suggest, if you were actually playing that, then I agree South could have that hand, but I would have thought that required specific agreement to do so, particularly as most people sem to play 2NT as lebensohl (or 2NT as sepcifically both minors) in this auction.

[pclayton]

I think when Lawrence wrote his book (I know it's only about 5 years old), LHO must have not been as apt to bomb 4♠ over the double.

G/B over 2♠ has the same problem.

[jdonn]

FrancesHinden, on Apr 12 2008, 06:09 AM, said:

As for the Lawrence treatment you suggest, if you were actually playing that, then I agree South could have that hand, but I would have thought that required specific agreement to do so, particularly as most people sem to play 2NT as lebensohl (or 2NT as sepcifically both minors) in this auction.

Oh we definitely have no agreements, I was just trying to show it's not as impossible as most people here seem to think. (And if we had agreed it, it's not partner 'could' have that hand, it's he 'would' have that hand.) FWIW I'm sure if this partner bid 2NT it would have been meant as natural.

[TimG]

FrancesHinden, on Apr 11 2008, 04:17 AM, said:

Initial double = what else?
Responsive double = a polite way of describing this is "aggressive"
Cue bid = what else?

My initial reaction was that North should go through with his plan to bid NT, then I was convinced that cue-bidding 3♠ was good. Now, I'm back in the NT camp. Yes, intervenor can envision slam in a minor, but advancer will be able to do the same if intervenor can show his strength with a NT bid (and at the same time imply fewer than four hearts and something in spades).

There's been a lot of criticism of south for bidding 4♥, but I don't think intervenor's cue-bid denied four hearts, so he sort of has to bid 4♥ along the way, doesn't he? I think north should get a big portion of the blame for passing 4♥.